The post How and why a photon APPEARS to be massless. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Quantum mechanics defines a photon as basic unit of an electromagnetic radiation and therefore, they assume it is massless because if it wasn’t Einstein tells us it could not move at the speed of light. But if it has no mass, it also has no energy because his equation E=mc^2 tells us energy is equivalent to mass. Some have used a mathematical argument the equation E=mc^2 is a special case of the more general equation: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 which for a particle with no mass (m = 0), reduces down to E = pc. Therefore, because photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and they get all of their energy from their momentum. However, the “p” in the equation NOT ONLY represents the momentum of a photon it also represents the energy associated with its motion. Thus, according to E=mc^2 that energy MUST also be considered mass. Putting it another way it does NOT MATER how we define the energy of a photon the fact that it has energy means it also has mass and therefore, SHOULD NOT be able move at the speed of light.
Therefore, if it were true electromagnetic energy was propagated by a photon Einstein Theory of Relativity would be invalidated, because it is impossible to use it to define how a particle could propagate energy at that speed.
However, if one assumes electromagnetic radiation is propagated by a energy wave in spacetime one can use the science of wave mechanics to explain how and why it MUST be propagated at the speed of light and why it observed to have the properties of the particle called a photon.
This is because the science of wave mechanics tells us waves move energy from one location to another without transporting the material they are moving on. For example a water molecule does not actually travel with the waves but does transmit that movement associated with the wave to the next unit of water. Putting it another way the molecules that make up the wave remain stationary with respect to the back ground of the water. Additionally, it will continue to do so unless it is obstructed by encountering an object or beach.
Similarly, an electromagnetic wave in spacetime COULD move at the speed of light because it does not move the energy associated with its peaks and valleys it creates in spacetime but would transmit them to the next unit of spacetime. Putting it another way then units of space time that make up an electromagnetic wave WOULD remain stationary with respect to the background of space time.
Additionally the velocity of a wave is dependent on the properties of the medium it is moving one. Therefore, the velocity of a electromagnetic wave would be and MUST dependent on the properties of the spacetime environment it is moving through.
However, one can also use the science of wave mechanics to understand why an electromagnetic wave ALWAYS takes on the form of a particle called a photon if it is prevented from moving through space by an interaction with someone or something.
The science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through spacetime unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to threedimensional space. It also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This explains how and why an electromagnetic wave becomes the particle called a photon when it is prevented from moving through space time by interacting someone of something.
This mechanism for the creation of a photon from an electromagnetic wave is consistent with the quantum mechanical observation that the wave properties of energy or the wave function as they like to call it only reduces or COLLAPSES to a photon or quantized unit of energy when it is observed or interacts with something.
This shows if one assumes that electromagnetic energy is propagated BY a wave NOT by a particle one can not only understand how energy can be propagated though space at the speed of light and why when it interacts with the external world of an observer it APPEARS as a photon in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions of BOTH Quantum Mechanics and Einstein Theory of Relativity.
The post How and why a photon APPEARS to be massless. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Electron diffraction and the downfall of Quantum Mechanics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Physics is an observational science whose purpose is not only to explain what we observe but what it is and why we can observe it. For example, for almost 2000 years the geocentric model of the universe was able to successfully predict planetary orbits. Its downfall was caused in part by the observation that the moons of Jupiter did not revolve around the earth and the fact Johannes Kepler was able mathematically define the laws of planetary motion that agreed with observation in terms of them orbiting the sun. However, those laws only define how a planet moves in terms a mathematical point called the center of gravity but does not define what it is.
For example, the observation that we can move on the surface of the earth tells us it has volume bigger than the point which defines its center of gravity. Putting it another way it requires at least two pieces of information to fully describe a particle, object, planet or universe. The first is its position which can be defined in terms of a mathematical point in space and the second is information about how it interacts with its environment such as a person walking on it. This tells what is it.
Quantum Mechanics has been very successful at describing the position of particles in terms of a mathematical point. However, that does NOT mean it defines what they are.
The fact particles such as an electron can be diffracted supports that conclusion because it is impossible to explain that in terms of a point particle that has no volume. Another observation is that particles are observed to collide in particle accelerators. This could not happen if they no volume.
However, there are many who feel the mathematics of the wave function that defines that point also gives us a complete description of what a particle is. However, if true they MUST be able use a mathematical property of it to explain how that point it defines as a particle can collide with others in particle accelerators or create diffraction patterns. If they cannot, they MUST repeat MUST accept the DOWNFALL of the idea that the wave function gives a complete definition of a particle and accept the that it can only define its position.
As was mentioned earlier it requires at least two pieces of information to fully describe a particle, its position and how in interacts with its environment.
Quantum Mechanics provide one, the position of a particle but as was just shown it cannot not tell what it is or how it interacts with its environment.
However, another core principle of Quantum Mechanics is that a particle’s position can ONLY be define only in terms of probabilities. This means one can understand what a particle is in terms of its core principle if one can define how interacts with its environment to create those probabilities.
One way of doing this would be to use the fact the interactions in both quantum and spacetime environments are defined or controlled by waves. For example, Relativity defines evolution of spacetime in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.
This suggests the wave function that governs the probabilistic evolution of the point defining a particle’s particle position may be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave that governs evolution in space time. If true one should be able to derive it those probabilities in terms of the interaction of that point with spacetime.
One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the observable properties of spacetime.
For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us wave energy moves continuously through spacetime unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to threedimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This defines how and why Quantum Mechanics define energy in terms of quantized units of space time.
However, it also tells us a particle would occupy an extended volume of space defined by the wavelength of its standing wave. Putting it another way what defines the fact that a particle appears where it does is NOT determined by probabilities associated with the point Quantum Mechanics define as its position but an interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the physical properties of spacetime.
However, IT ALSO tells us the reason particles collide in particle accelerators or create diffraction patterns is because they have and extended volume in terms of mathematical properties of the wave function.
Not only that, it shows the probabilities Quantum Mechanics associates with the position of a particle is the result of the fact it defines them in terms of a mathematical point in space which would be randomly distributed with respect to a center of the standing wave which earlier defined a one. Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle’s center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space. Pitting it another way one must define where it appears in terms of probabilities to average the deviations that are caused by the random placement of that point.
The reason why it is not necessary to use probabilities in Relativity is because those deviations are average out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.
As was mentioned earlier it requires at least two pieces of information to fully define a particle, object planet or our universe. The first is its position the second what it is or how it interacts with its environment.
As was shown above NEITHER Relativity or Quantum Mechanics CAN do both on their own. However, we can we can define both the position of a particle and what it is if we combine their core principles to create Theory of Everything.
The post Electron diffraction and the downfall of Quantum Mechanics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post How and why a photon APPEARS to be massless. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Quantum mechanics defines a photon as basic unit of an electromagnetic radiation and therefore, they assume it is massless because if it wasn’t Einstein tells us it could not move at the speed of light. But if it has no mass, it also has no energy because his equation E=mc^2 tells us energy is equivalent to mass. Some have used a mathematical argument the equation E=mc^2 is a special case of the more general equation: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 which for a particle with no mass (m = 0), reduces down to E = pc. Therefore, because photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and they get all of their energy from their momentum. However, the “p” in the equation NOT ONLY represents the momentum of a photon it also represents the energy associated with its motion. Thus, according to E=mc^2 that energy MUST also be considered mass. Putting it another way it does NOT MATER how we define the energy of a photon the fact that it has energy means it also has mass and therefore, SHOULD NOT be able move at the speed of light.
(Some have suggested that “E” is the total relativistic energy. which consists of rest mass energy (mc^2), kinetic energy (pc), and potential energy. It is fundamentally wrong to say that anything with energy has mass because E = mc^2 is the measure of the rest mass energy of a particle. Therefore a photon with momentum can have zero mass. However, even though Einstein may have defined Relativistic energy in terms of its components such as kinetic energy (pc), and potential energy (pc) he did not make the same distinction regarding there energy. Therefore. because Einstein defined gravity and therefore mass in terms of a curvature in spacetime caused by the energy density of space we MUST assume the increase in its energy density caused by the momentum of photon will do the same. Since his equation E=mc^2 defines the energy contained in the curvature in spacetime he associated with mass we must assume the energy associated with a photon’s momentum will cause it to have mass. Therefore it is NOT as some have suggested fundamentally wrong to say that anything with momentum including a photon does have mass”)
Therefore, if it were true electromagnetic energy was propagated by a photon Einstein Theory of Relativity would be invalidated, because it is impossible to use it to define how a particle could propagate energy at that speed.
However, if one assumes electromagnetic radiation is propagated by a energy wave in spacetime one can use the science of wave mechanics to explain how and why it MUST be propagated at the speed of light and why it observed to have the properties of the particle called a photon.
This is because the science of wave mechanics tells us waves move energy from one location to another without transporting the material they are moving on. For example a water molecule does not actually travel with the waves but does transmit that movement associated with the wave to the next unit of water. Putting it another way the molecules that make up the wave remain stationary with respect to the back ground of the water. Additionally, it will continue to do so unless it is obstructed by encountering an object or beach.
Similarly, an electromagnetic wave in spacetime COULD move at the speed of light because it does not move the energy associated with its peaks and valleys it creates in spacetime but would transmit them to the next unit of spacetime. Putting it another way then units of space time that make up an electromagnetic wave WOULD remain stationary with respect to the background of space time.
Additionally the velocity of a wave is dependent on the properties of the medium it is moving one. Therefore, the velocity of a electromagnetic wave would be and MUST dependent on the properties of the spacetime environment it is moving through.
However, one can also use the science of wave mechanics to understand why an electromagnetic wave ALWAYS takes on the form of a particle called a photon if it is prevented from moving through space by an interaction with someone or something.
The science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through spacetime unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to threedimensional space. It also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This explains how and why an electromagnetic wave becomes the particle called a photon when it is prevented from moving through space time by interacting someone of something.
This mechanism for the creation of a photon from an electromagnetic wave is consistent with the quantum mechanical observation that the wave properties of energy or the wave function as they like to call it only reduces or COLLAPSES to a photon or quantized unit of energy when it is observed or interacts with something.
This shows if one assumes that electromagnetic energy is propagated BY a wave NOT by a particle one can not only understand how energy can be propagated though space at the speed of light and why when it interacts with the external world of an observer it APPEARS as a photon in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions of BOTH Quantum Mechanics and Einstein Theory of Relativity.
The post How and why a photon APPEARS to be massless. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Quantum entanglement as define by Einstein appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Please click here if you would like to read a summary of the ideas presented in this blog
Presently, there is disconnect between our understanding of one of the most mysterious facets of quantum mechanics, that of quantum entanglement and the classical one of separation.
Entanglement occurs when two particles are linked together no matter their separation from one another. Quantum mechanics assumes even though these entangled particles are not physically connected, they still are able to interact or share information with each other instantaneously.
Many believe this means the universe does not live by the law’s classical laws of separation or those derived by Einstein which state that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.
However, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions because Einstein gave us the definitive answer as to how and why some particles, such as photons are entangled in terms of the physical properties of spacetime.
Quantum mechanics assumes that entanglement occurs when two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. This connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.
There is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of particles can instantaneously affect another even though they are physically separated from each other.
However, before we come to the conclusion it is a result of their quantum mechanical properties, we should first examine the experimental setup and any variables that may allow us to come to a different conclusion.
(This description was obtained from the Live Science web site) One of the experiments many assume verifies that entanglement is a quantum phenomenon uses a laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal which causes individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons. The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more. When observed, Photon A takes on an upspin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a downspin state). The transfer of state (or information) between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. Scientists have successfully demonstrated quantum entanglement with photos, electrons, molecules of various sizes, and even very small diamonds.
However, Einstein told us there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance.
Therefore, he tells the distance between the observational points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons in the above experiment.
However, his Theory of Special Relativity tells us objects moving at relativistic speeds would cause the distance separating the end points of an observation to contract along the direction of motion. Yet, it also tells us that the separation between those two points would be zero form the perspective of an object moving at the speed of light.
This means according Einstein the separation between the observation points in a laboratory from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.
Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be from the perspective of an observer who is looking at them.
In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of spacetime as defined by Einstein as well as by Quantum Mechanics.
One way of verifying if this is correct would be to determine if particles which were NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement over the same distances as photons which are.
This is because, the degree of relativistic shortening between the end points of the observations of two particle is dependent on their velocity with respect to the laboratory where they are being observed.
However, he also tells us that distance will be greater than zero for particles moving slower than the speed of light; how much more would depend on their speed relative to the observer.
Therefore, if it was found that only photons experience entanglement when the observation points were separated by large distances it would support the idea that it is caused by the relativistic properties of space defined by Einstein.
However, one must remember the wave particle duality of existence as defined by Quantum mechanics tell us that before a particle is observed it has an extended length due to its wavelength. Therefore, all particles will be entangled if the reduction in length between the endpoints of the observations when adjusted for their relative velocity is less their wave length as defined by quantum mechanics.
A more conclusive argument could be made for the idea that entanglement is a result of the relativistic properties of space if it was found that entanglement ceased if the relativistic distance between the end points of observation when viewed from the perspective of particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its wavelength as defined by quantum mechanics.
Some have suggested that “There are inertial frames for every speed less than light but there is none for light speed itself. Any attempt to generate one actually generates a degenerate frame which can cover only an infinitesimal fraction of spacetime.”
However, that argument is invalid, because the conceptual foundations and Einstein’s formulas for length contractions associated with relative motion ARE SOLVABLE for the speed of light. That tells, us since there is a valid solution for the speed of light which is zero the distance between the endpoints of all observations made in a lab CAN be zero for all photons. Putting it another way even though it may define reference frame of zero length does it does NOT mean it is degenerate because as was mentioned earlier it is a valid solution of Einstein’s equations.
copyright Jeffery O’Callaghan 2021
The post Quantum entanglement as define by Einstein appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post A classical reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus of an atom appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Quantum mechanics assumes the quantization of energy is what prevents electrons from falling into the nucleus of atoms. However, Classical Wave Mechanics provides another explanation base the observation that a system which is oscillating at is natural resonant frequency is one the most efficient ways to store and transfer energy between different storage modes.
This combined with one of the most test and accepted laws of physics that energy can neither be created or destroyed suggests the reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus MAY BE because their energy is stored in resonate systems.
Both quantum mechanics and the FACT that electron diffraction has been observed tell us that it has properties of waves. Therefore, to verify the above assumption one must show what keeps it from falling into the nucleus is a resonate system created in the space around the nucleus by its wave properties.
The first step is to show how a resonant system can be created around a nucleus.
Science of wave mechanics tells us the wave energy associated with an electron would move continuously through the space around the nucleus because it is bound to it. This would create a resonant or standing wave in it that would define its energy level. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. Putting it another way it defines why the energy levels in atoms are quantized.
As was mentioned earlier one of the most test and accepted laws of physics is that energy can neither be created or destroyed. However, since energy can neither be crated or destroyed an electrons energy could NEVER repeat NEVER disappear by falling in the nucleus and therefore it MUST repeat MUST be stored someplace.
Yet as was also mentioned earlier classical wave mechanics tells us the most efficient way to store energy is in resonant system such as the standing wave which earlier define the quantum properties of the orbital energy levels in an atom. Therefore, it tells us the energy in each level would most likely be stored in a resonant system or standing wave that has the energy associated with that level.
However, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized value associated with its fundamental frequency. This define in terms of the classical properties of wave mechanics the reason all atomic orbital are quantized is because their energy is stored in a system which is oscillating at the natural resonant frequency associated with its energy.
Both quantum mechanics and as was shown above classical wave mechanics gives valid reasons why electrons do not fall in the nucleus based on their theoretical foundations. Quantum mechanics assumes they do not because their energy is quantized based on the unobservable mathematical of the wave function. However, as was show above Classical wave mechanics give a reason which are just as valid in terms of the observable properties standing waves and the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
However physics is a science based on observation. Therefore if one can show that both yield the same quantitative results for the energy of the energy level in atoms one would have admit the one describe above is more credible because it is based on observations of our physical environment.
The post A classical reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus of an atom appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Quantum Tunneling in space time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Quantum tunneling is the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a wavefunction can propagate through a potential barrier.
Many believe the ability of a particle to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is higher in energy than its kinetic energy can only be explain by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
However, that MAY NOT be true because it could be due to the dynamics of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime.
But before begin we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of spacetime is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.
This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime.
One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through spacetime unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to threedimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.
As was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave functions defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of its wave particle duality. However, as was shown above one can understand why if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a spacetime because if it is prevented from evolving through space by an observation it presents itself as a particle.
As was also mentioned earlier many believe the ability of a particle to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is higher in energy than the its kinetic energy can only be explain by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
However, one can use the science of wave mechanics to show that MAY NOT be true.
It and observations of waves tell us when the crests of two waves collide will produce a wave with more energy. This means if crests of the standing wave responsible for a particle mentioned above collide, they will produce a wave which MAY have enough kinetic energy to go over a potential energy barrier that is higher than that associated with the original wave.
One could validate this conclusion in terms of the physical connection mentioned above between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime. Because if it is true one should be able to use it to define PROBABILITY of where and when the crests of the two waves associated with wave function would most likely interact to produce one with enough energy overcome the kinetic energy barrier. If that probability agrees with the observed number that passes through the barrier it would support that assumption.
The post Quantum Tunneling in space time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post How should we define reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>This question is especially relevant for the scientists who struggle on daily basis to help us understand the “inner” reality of our universe.
Some define it based on a quantitative mathematical analysis of observations.
For example, Quantum mechanics defines the “reality” or the state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made. However, defining reality in terms of probabilities means that each probabilistic outcome of an event becomes a reality in the future. This is why some proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.
This also may be why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that
“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”
However, others define reality in terms of deterministic proprieties of cause and effect.
For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a causal relationship between the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a reality which could predict their future movements based on observations of their earlier movements.
Both the wave function of quantum mechanics and Newton’s gravitational laws are valid definitions of reality because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.
However, this does not mean that they accurately define the environment responsibility for those realities.
For example, at the time of their discovery Newton’s gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they did not explain why those those laws exist.
However, Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an “alternative reality” that could explain them in terms of a distortion in spacetime. However, it did not alter or change the validity of Newton’s gravitational laws when the velocities were small with respect to the speed of light, they are still valid.
This shows, just as there was room for an alternative “reality” which could explain Newton’s laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum probabilities that would not affect the validity of those predictions. This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory’s mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.
As mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines reality in terms of probabilities, which means each probabilistic outcome becomes a reality in the future. However, it also means one must assume separate realities are created for the possible outcomes of every event.
However, this would not be true if those probabilities can be derived in terms of an interaction between a quantum system and the physical properties of the universe.
For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after the roll. This is because the probability of getting a six is related to or caused by its physical interaction with the properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. In other words, what defines the reality getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies. Putting it another way. the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.
As was mentioned earlier many proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities because it describes the interactions of a quantum system with the universe in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. This means there must a separated universe for all possible outcomes of an event.
However, even though the reality that appears when a dice is rolled in a casino can be determined in terms of a probably does not mean all possibilities appear in their own separate casino. This is because as was mentioned earlier the probabilities involved in the roll of dice does not define the reality of the casino but that the casino defines those probabilities. In other words, the fact that casino define the probability of the role of dice tells us that it will have definite outcome in the casino
Similarly, just because quantum mechanics describes the interactions of a quantum system in terms of probabilities, we should not assume they define the reality of the universe because it is possible the universe defines those probabilities.
This also shows how one defines reality depends on if all you care about is that a six appears on the roll of dice or if you want know why you rolled it.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2021
The Road to Unifying 


The post How should we define reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Is Gravitational time dilation responsible for Dark Energy? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Recently it has been suggested a force called Dark Energy is needed to account for the observations suggesting the universe’s expansion is accelerating. However, there is another reason which is related to effect gravity has on time.
Einstein told us and it has been observed the rate at which time passes is perceived to be slower in all environments where the gravitational potential is greater with respect where it is being observed. This means the further we look back in time, where the gravitational potential of the universe’s was greater due to the more densely pack matter, the estimate of its rate of expansion would be slower than it actually was if that were not taken into consideration.
However, we also know the gravitational potential has a slowing effect on the universe’s expansion and because that potential decreases as its volume increase, the rate of that slowing also decreases.
This means the rate of its expansion would be faster than it appeared to be from the perspective of present due to the effects gravity has on time while its actual rate of slowing would be declining due to its decreasing gravitational potential as it expands.
Yet, because of the nonlinear effects between the slowing of time created by universe’s differential gravitational potential and the effects it has on its rate of expansion there will be a point in its history where one will APPEAR to overtake the other.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS POSSIBLE THE OBSERVATIONS SUGGESTING ITS EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE EFFECTS ITS GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL HAS ON TIME WHICH WOULD CAUSES IT TO APPEAR MOVE SLOWER IN THE PAST THAN IT ACTUALLY DID.
One could verify this conclusion by using the observation that about 4 billion years ago the universe’s expansion appears to have change from decelerating to an accelerated phase. This is because one could derive its actual rate of expansion in the past by using Einstein equations to determine how much time would have been slowed due to the differential gravitational potential between the past and present. If it was found that about 4 billion years ago that actual rate of expansion was faster than it is now it would suggest that the its expansion is NOT accelerating
Some may say the slowing of time slowing would not affect its expansion because it is expanding along with the entire universe. However, Einstein define the time dilation only in terms of the affects a differential gravitational potential has on it therefore it would not be affected by its expansion. Some have also suggested that because it is expanding the gravitational potential is expanding and weakening at the same rate therefore when we look back the effects it will have on the timing of its expansion will cancel. However, Einstein tells us the timing of events that cause the universe to expand is locked in the past along with its gravitational potential at the time the expansion took place. Therefore, one must take into account the differential gravitational potential between the past and present universe when defining its expansion.
Some have also suggested Relativistic properties gravity has on time already been already been accounted in the Friedman model that was used in part by scientist to define the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, that is NOT the case because when someone in the past measures its rate of expansion he or she would NOT need to use the slowing effects gravity has on time because his entire spatial slice of the universe would be at the same gravitational potential. However, this would NOT be the case for someone looking at it from the future. He would have to use it because due to its expansion a differential gravitational potential would have developed between the past and present. Yet as was mentioned earlier the effects gravity has on time tell us from the perspective of the present its expansion rate would be moving slower than it actually was from the perspective of someone who is present at the time when that expansion was taking place. In other words, since Friedman’s equation does not consider the effects the differential gravitational density has on time it would predict it to be slower in the past than it actually was.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2021
The Road to Unifying 


The post Is Gravitational time dilation responsible for Dark Energy? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Quantum entanglement CAN tell us why the universe is what it is. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Entanglement provides a VERY SIMPLE experimental way of determining if Quantum mechanics or Einstein’s Relativistic theories define why our universe is what it is.
This is because it is one of the central principles of quantum physics. In short it assumes two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. This connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.
However, it contradicts the central core Einstein’s theory of Relativity which states that no information can be transmitted instantaneously or faster than the speed of light.
Since these two concepts are diametrically opposite, if one can define the mechanism responsible for entanglement in terms of either one it would invalidate the other will help us to understand why our universe is what it is.
This is because there is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of photons instantaneously affect the other even though they are physically separated from each other.
As was mentioned earlier quantum physics, assumes ALL entangled particles, not only photons remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances, while Einstein tells us that instantaneous or faster than light communication between to particles is impossible. However, he also told us the distance between two objects or points in space is defined by their relative motion and that there is no preferred reference frame by which one can define that distance.
Therefore, he tells the distance between the observational points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons moving at the speed of light.
Yet, his formula for length contraction tells us the separation between those observational points from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.
Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be someone who is looking at them. Additionally, it also tells us the information exchange between two entangle photons does not travel faster than the speed of light because from their perspective the distance between the observation points where information was read is zero.
(Some have suggested that “There are inertial frames for every speed less than light but there is none for light speed itself. Any attempt to generate one actually generates a degenerate frame which can cover only an infinitesimal fraction of spacetime.”
However, that argument is invalid, because the conceptual foundations and Einstein’s formulas for length contractions associated with relative motion ARE SOLVABLE for the speed of light. That tells, us since there is a valid solution for the speed of light which is zero the distance between the endpoints of all observations made in a lab CAN be zero for all photons. Putting it another way even though it may define reference frame of zero length does it does NOT mean it is degenerate because as was mentioned earlier it is a valid solution of Einstein’s equations)
. In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of spacetime as defined by Einstein as well as by quantum mechanics.
HOWEVER, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER ONE OF THE CORE PRINCIPALS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS IS THAT ALL PARTICLES SHARE ON A QUANTUM LEVEL ONE OR MORE PROPERTIES SUCH AS SPIN POLARIZATION OR MOMENTUM.
This gives us a way of experimentally determining which of these two theories define why entanglement occurs because if it is found that some particles that are NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement it would validate one of the core principals of quantum mechanics and invalidate Relativities assumption that information cannot be exchange instantaneously or faster that the speed of light.
However, one MUST ALSO use another core principle of quantum mechanics defined by De Broglie that particles are made up of a wave whose wavelength is defined by ? = h/p to determine if it or Einstein’s theories define how the universe works. This is because it tells us all material particles have an extended volume equal to there wavelength.
Yet because ALL particles have an extended volume equal to their wavelength there will be an overlap or entanglement if the distance separating them is less than their volume as defined by De Broglie.
This tells us some particles moving slower than the speed of light CAN BE entangled if the relativistic distance between the observation points from the perspective of the particles is less than their extended volume is because from their perspective they are in physical contact.
This means that both relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that all particles CAN be entangled if the distance between the end points of the measurements of their shared properties is less than their wavelength or volume as defined by De Broglie.
However, this gives us a way to DEFINITIVELY determine which one of these theories defines the reason for entanglement because we can precisely define the wavelength and therefore the volume of a particle by, as mentioned earlier using De Broglie formula ? = h/p while one can determine, the relative distance between the observation points from the perspective of the particles being observed by using Einstein formula for length contraction. If it is found entanglement DOES NOT occur if that distance is greater than a particles volume then it would invalidate the core principles of quantum mechanics that two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum no matter how far they are separated. However, if it is found that entanglement does occur even if the separation was greater than their volume it would invalidate the core principals of relativity that no information can be transferred faster that the speed of light.
In other words, it gives us a doable experimental that will UNEQUIVOCALLY tell us if Quantum Mechanics or Einstein’s’ theories define why the universe is what it is.
The post Quantum entanglement CAN tell us why the universe is what it is. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Finally a way to determine if Quantum Mechanics or Relativity rules the universe. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics or “OED” realized the significance of the Thompson’s double slit experiment because it demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle properties of particles and felt a complete understanding of quantum mechanics could be gleaned from carefully thinking through its implications.
However it also allows one to understand the physical connection between quantum mechanics and the spacetime universe of Einstein.
The double slit experiment is made up of “A coherent source of photons illuminating a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.
When only one slit is open, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern however, when both slits are open, the pattern is similar but with much more detailed. These facts were elucidated by Thomas Young in a paper entitled “Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics,” published in 1803. To a very high degree of success, these results could be explained by the method of Huygens–Fresnel principle that is based on the hypothesis that light consists of waves propagated through some medium. However, discovery of the photoelectric effect made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account.
It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through, the interference pattern no longer forms and it yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, without interference. However, there ways to determine which slit a photon passed through in which the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out. For instance, by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.
However the most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time impacts a barrier with two opened slits because an interference pattern forms which is similar to what it was when multiple photons were impacting the barrier. This is a clear implication the particle called a photon has a wave component, which simultaneously passes through both slits and interferes with itself. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)”
As was mentioned earlier, one can understand this experiment in term of the physical properties of spacetime and Relatively because they tell us wave energy moves continuously through space and time time unless it is prevented from by moving through time by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to threedimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This means the particle quantum mechanic calls a photon would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave.
(Note the boundaries or “walls” of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through time therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. Putting it another way wave itself defines its boundaries because if it cannot move though time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.)
As was mentioned earlier one can use the above to demonstrate the physical connection between quantum mechanics and the spacetime universe of Einstein.
Briefly it shows the reason why the interference pattern remains when one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open or “the most baffling part of this experiment” is because, as mentioned earlier it is made up of a standing wave therefore it occupies an extended volume which is directly related to its wavelength.
This means a portion of its energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern. This would occur because wave energy is allowed to move freely through time.
However, when its energy is prevented from moving through time by contacting the screen its energy will be will confined to threedimensional space causing it to be concentrated in a standing wave that as mentioned earlier would define the particle properties of a photon.
Additionally because the energy of the standing wave which earlier was shown to define a photon is dependent on its frequency the energy of the particle created when it contacts the screen must have the same energy. Therefore, were it appears on the screen will be determined by where the interference of the wave properties from each slit combine to produce enough energy to support the standing wave associated with its particle properties.
It also explains why the interference pattern disappears, in most cases when a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through is because the energy required to measure which one of slits it passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of the one being measured to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit. Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in most cases with the energy passing through the other one to form an interference pattern on the screen.
However it also explains why, as was mentioned “there are ways to determine which slit a photon passed through that will cause a change in the interference pattern but will not completely wiped it out.
The fact that the interference pattern can still occur even if a measurement is made is because if the energy passing through one of the two slits is altered by a relatively small amount compared to what it originally was, classical wave mechanics tells us it will be able to interact to form a slightly different resonant system with a slightly different interference pattern on the other side than would be the case if no measurement was taken.
However, this also means one SHOULD be able to use the science of wave mechanics and the physical properties of spacetime to quantify the maximum amount of energy a measuring device can remove from the wave while passing through a slit that will permit the interference pattern although somewhat altered to be reestablished on the other side.
This provides an EXPERIMENTAL WAY of determining if the results of the Thompson’s double slit experiment are due to physical properties of spacetime or the quantum properties of the wave function
because if the pattern disappears above that value and reappears below it would SUGGEST the above explanation is valid. If not it would SUGGEST the quantum mechanical one is.
The post Finally a way to determine if Quantum Mechanics or Relativity rules the universe. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>